In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

172 LETTERS IN CANADA 2000 methodology and its attempt to work through the project with the attitude of experimentation will provide a significant impulse to the study of religion, especially in relationship to the symbol systems which religions contain. The book is challenging to read, retaining much of its dissertation flavour and diction, with constant reference to scholarly secondary sources and an emphasis on the academic language of the discipline. But those who wish to understand the genesis and development of the world=s religions along with gaining an insight into the profound contribution each religion makes to an understanding of human existence will find the effort they expend on studying the book well rewarded. (ANDREW RIPPIN) Jean Delisle, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, and Monique C. Cormier, editors. Terminologie de la traduction/Translation Terminology/Terminología de la traduccíon/ Terminologie der Ubersetzung. Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Monograph Series, Volume 1 John Benjamins. vi, 434. US $41.95 Meant as a contribution to the teaching of translation, this volume addresses the problem of the inflated terminology of translation by selecting about two hundred terms deemed to be the most useful. There are 1,419 terms gleaned from fifteen major teaching handbooks chosen from eighty-eight works published since the Second World War. Many specialists have collaborated in this praiseworthy endeavour, and the result of their efforts is on the whole more than satisfactory. The book comprises four sections of equal length in, respectively, French, English, Spanish, and German. Crossreferences to related or opposite terms within each section and to equivalent terms in other sections help the readers find their way in what otherwise might have become a terminological labyrinth. As is to be expected in a handbook of this size offering a wealth of definitions , some of which are accompanied by examples, there are some details that may need revision or clarification. Before going into some of these, I would like to make a few remarks. Whereas the French >Présentation,= the English >Introduction,= the Spanish >Presentacíon,= and the German >zur Einführung= are identical, the bibliographies given at the end of each section differ considerably. Studies in the language discussed are more prominent, of course, than in the three other bibliographies. Some titles occur in all four, some in three, two, or one. However, it is odd that a French title, absent from the French bibliography , is listed in the Spanish one (Greimas et Courtès: Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage). Another work by Greimas (Sémantique structurale) is mentioned only in the French and German bibliographies. Greimas=s name does not occur in the English listing. On the other hand, the English bibliography, by far the shortest of the four, is the HUMANITIES 173 only one to include Saussure=s Cours de linguistique générale in a French edition, not in a readily available English translation. Yet the English section is less Saussurean than its counterparts. This is clearly illustrated by the comparison of the entries Fr. signification, Eng. meaning, Sp. significado /significacíon, Germ. Bedeutung. The English entry is much shorter and does not provide the information about authors and studies given by the other entries. There is some confusion about the precise relationship of >signified= and >concept.= It goes back to the text of the Cours de linguistique générale. The complex problem is linked to polysemy: is the >signified= act to be split into several concepts: act (handling), act (section of a play), act (notarial paper)? If not, how does one combine everything into one concept? The opposition denotation/connotation is generally well explained. One could take issue with the statement that denotation represents objective meaning, free from context. It may well be that for many speakers the most frequent context subconsciously plays a part in establishing denotation. When the German entry declares that connotation represents the variable elements of denotative meaning, the separation seems to be incomplete. It is likely not the intention of the authors to incorporate connotation into denotation, though. The Spanish entry >Aspecto= is the only one to mention >grammatical aspect= alongside >lexical aspect.= Yet for translators the former is much...

pdf

Share